She asked him whether someone making such searches might be "trying to figure out how to make chloroform."

The objection by defense attorney José Baez was sustained. But Burdick made her point.

The blogs went wild. This proved Casey's guilt.

But nobody considered that the number made no sense.

Bradley testified that the total time spent on sites linked to chloroform was a little more than three minutes. Why would someone sit there and repetitively visit the same site 84 times, spending an average of less than three seconds on each visit?

There were other problems.

An earlier report using different software had found only one search for "chloroform."

As for Bradley's software, investigators encountered problems running it and he had to spend three days getting it to work.

And the sheriff's report wasn't turned in until after the trial began.

So it appears there was a rushed report based on problematic software producing an unbelievable number.

Baez began poking holes in the computer searches when questioning a computer expert from the Sheriff's Office.

This alarmed Bradley, who contacted prosecutors and agreed that there probably was only one search.

After the trial, he issued a news release saying he did not produce the sheriff's report and was unprepared to testify about it in detail. He basically implied he was ambushed by prosecutors.

"Personally speaking, a single 'chloroform.htm' with a visit count of 84 seemed odd," he said in the statement. "But since I did not have any other details about the investigation and since I did not investigate the evidence, that's all I could say."

This is the kind of evidence we use to put people to death?

The jury never was made aware of Bradley's retraction.

"We tried to get the state to enter into a stipulation to advise jury that there was an error," says defense attorney Cheney Mason. "The state wouldn't agree to it. They knew it was wrong, and they did nothing to fix it."

There probably was a good reason for that. The computer records indicate someone searched "chloroform" right after going to a MySpace page.

It was on MySpace that her then-boyfriend posted a picture of a couple, with the words, "Win her over with chloroform."

It makes sense that Casey saw that and then searched "chloroform" on the Web.

Baez hit on this in his closing argument.

"This is fraud," he said angrily. "This is trying to pull a fast one."

Before Burdick gave her closing statement, Baez asked that she disclose the error.

It is one thing for a defense attorney to attack evidence, and an entirely different thing for a prosecutor to admit she introduced wrong evidence.

When Perry asked Burdick for a response to Baez's request, she simply said Baez had his chance to make his case during his closing argument.

Perry then turned to Baez and said, "I don't know if what you are saying is true or false. If there is evidence of false testimony, file the appropriate motion at the appropriate time, and I will take a look at it and see."

If it wasn't clear to Perry that Bradley gave false testimony, how would it have been clear to the jury?

Burdick never brought up the computer searches in her closing statement.

Had there been a guilty verdict, this may have been grounds for reversal.

But this case was all about winning in the glare of cameras and worrying about appeals later.

There have been allegations that prosecutors withheld Bradley's disclosure from the defense.

But the State Attorney's Office denied this in a statement, saying prosecutors notified Baez of Bradley's correction.

If so, Mason says he didn't know about it. But he offered praise for Burdick's ethics and said he had great respect for her.